City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

[Blueskyson]

I'll say this again - if you are the governing body, and in a legal proceeding, the laws you enacted are judged to have been unlawful, unreasonable and unfair it impossible to claim that you won. It is unreasonable to claim a score draw even.

And it is bizarre for anyone to defend you. Clubs, pundits, fans attempting to be magnanimous. This was the thrust of Martin Samuel's article - for that to be described as nonsense just makes no sense to me.

Everyone, from every club, should be outraged by the behavior and, being kind, incompetence of the people we trust to be in charge.

The problem is other clubs know they cannot beat us on the field so they going to any lengths to try other non football related methods and so far they losing. In particular the trio red cartel that are determined to undermine us in any way possible.

 

[BringBackSwales]

You might laugh but this is probably not far from the truth, if not the whole truth.
It really is this simple when you think of how we get treated, the red cartel clubs get treated and then the rest.

I know mate, that’s why I said it!

 

[Chris in London]

Very comprehensive. A couple of observations, if I may.

"City's objective is stated in the decision at paragraph 4. City sought a declaration that the rules concerning APTs were unlawful and an order that two decisions of the PL board concerning APTs in which MCFC have tried to participate were unlawful and should be set aside - that is rescinded."

"That is rescinded" is unclear. (It confused me!) Did you mean "i.e. rescinded"? (Defining "set aside")

For the next but one paragraph, "Then you can look at the final summary paragraph to see how each party did. Paragraph (i) says the APT rules breach sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998. So the APT rules are unlawful. Paragraphs (ii) and (iii) say much the same thing, in relation to different aspects of the rules", I'd add

"The APT rules are unlawful, therefore prohibited, and the decisions to introduce the rules and the amended rules are void under s.2(4) of the Competition Act 1988" (cited by the Tribunal). There are currently no APT rules."

What would also be helpful would be to explain that "deliberately and knowingly" favouring other clubs with shareholders' interest-free loans derives from the term "by object" (thanks to @Norbiton for highlighting that) and a bit on "We give declaratory relief", which I understand is effectively legalese for "City have won".

I don't like the cancer analogy. Others have suggested instead the murder trial with 15 counts of murder, but you're only convicted of 5. You're still a serial killer

thanks for that.

A few posters seemed to be unsure what “set aside” actually means so it’s just a word to explain that.

I don’t think you can say there are no APT rules. The rules exist because they were voted on by the requisite majority of PL clubs. The rules are unenforceable because they are unlawful, but that is not to say they don’t exist. A fine distinction perhaps but quite an important one.

As you say “declaratory relief” just means a declaration the the APT rules are unlawful. That declaration is binding on the PL and any other club can rely on it. The two APT decisions affect only City and the PL but the declaration affects all 20 PL members.

I don’t like the murder analogy. 15 counts of murder is 15 different offences. So on some you do win. A better analogy would be a charge that the victim was poisoned, then stabbed, then electrocuted then suffocated and the prosecution only land the stabbing. It’s enough in itself even if some of the other allegations don’t succeed.

Finally I’m going to do a longer post about why the rules were drafted as they were. There’s quite a lot to unpack there…

 

[freshie]

 

[Cobwebcat]

Martin Samuel has it right where he says “Profit and Sustainability” should just be “Sustainability” because the profit, of individual clubs, is nothing to do with them. As long as the club isn’t going bust it could be that the owner wanted the club to be a non profit organisation and, as such, would be free to keep ticket prices down.

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

Won't the tribunal have to acceot that any new regs are lawful?

Yes I would think so but the PL are going to need a way to re-write the past otherwise face legal action from its member clubs because some of them avoided FFP due to low or no cost loans…

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The only reason FFP/PSR/APT are still a thing 15 years after their introduction is because UEFA & the PL are judge, jury & executioner where football is concerned. The two times external arbiters have ruled on their judgements, they've found against them, but as long as UEFA & the PL are allowed to self regulate, they'll continue to concoct further cunning plans to stymie Manchester City.

Great post overall but this bit is spot on. The reason the APT rules were introduced is laid bare in the tribunal's report.

The cartel felt that City were playing fast and loose with the related party rules, and weren't declaring companies like Etihad as related parties. The fact our auditors plainly agreed they weren't was of no consequence to them. There is no possible interpretation of IAS 24 whereby City & Etihad are related parties (apart from in the cartel's imagination).

So they persuaded the PL to come up with the rules about associated parties, where the PL can basically ignore long-established and agreed accounting standards and decide for themselves. There's even something in those rules that says the PL itself can decide who is a related party. It's also clear (and it's disappointing that the tribunal were clearly very naive over this) that Gulf States are the clear target.

I pointed out to Jonathan Wilson on X that this is the reason these cases are happening, not because wealthy clubs are capriciously seeking to undermine the PL or its rules.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Martin Samuel has it right where he says “Profit and Sustainability” should just be “Sustainability” because the profit, of individual clubs, is nothing to do with them. As long as the club isn’t going bust it could be that the owner wanted the club to be a non profit organisation and, as such, would be free to keep ticket prices down.

PSR is not even about financial sustainability, as I've pointed out on here a number of times.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The usual client journalists are more concerned with clocks

That's because their IQ is minute.

 

[Cobwebcat]

PSR is not even about financial sustainability, as I've pointed out on here a number of times.

That’s right but his point was it should be and nothing else.